3 ms·

I think we are practically agreeing at this point. And you bring some interesting perspectives. Very interesting conversation. Thanks. To address the different

I think we are practically agreeing at this point. And you bring some interesting perspectives. Very interesting conversation. Thanks. To address the different burden of proof interpretations, like the author you quoted: in philosophy/logic it seems to be concerned with truth; in other disciplines (like discussing online, our main topic), with usefulness. I agree with you that defining the term would be the best (but it puts us in Socrates territory). So, again, (I believe) it is right, but not practical for certain uses (discussing online would turn into discussing the definitions. In the end, the person making an unfounded claim is still wasting everybody's time discussing definitions instead of proving arguments in favor of their claims). IMO this unhealthy dynamic of burden of proof is common to most disciplines (ones concerned about usefulness/practicality and not just truth). There is an unbalance of effort on making a point, and the unbalance should be, IMO, on the person challenging the status quo. So, to conclude, because the concept of burden of proof seems useless to deal with truth, but it is useful to deal with usefulness, I think it is ok to assume the definition of it is the practical one (and not the philosophical). If somebody brings a point that challenges the status quo, IMO, they can be annoyed at people throwing burden of proof at them, but they are not right. They can, instead, use this energy to come up with arguments in favor of their argument. Maybe burden of proof should not be described as a logical fallacy, since it is more of a rule to abide by for fruitful discussing, and, as far as I can tell, has no connection to logic. I guess in the end our little disagreement comes down to that truth/usefulness interpretation.

skissane 5y ago
I agree with you that, in practical matters, one has to be concerned with questions like – is it even worth my while debating this? especially with this particular person? I saw the other day someone posting (not here) that COVID vaccines are actually a secret mind control plot to turn us all into slaves of Bill Gates. What's the burden of proof in that debate? Well, for me, the burden of proof is irrelevant, because I've got better things to do in life than even pay their arguments any attention. On the other hand, I often see debates on the Internet about the existence of God, and one side will claim that the other has all the burden of proof. (Most commonly it is the atheist side saying that, although I've heard theists say that too.) Nobody has to debate the existence of God, of course – whether you believe in God or not, you may well have better things to do than argue about it with some random person on the Internet. But, if you are going to enter into the debate, I think one should acknowledge that one is participating (however amateurishly) in the discipline of philosophy of religion, and then maybe one should pay some heed to professional philosophers' thoughts on the burden of proof–such as Lehrer's view that both sides in a philosophical debate bear an equal burden of proof.

skissane 5y ago

I agree with you that, in practical matters, one has to be concerned with questions like – is it even worth my while debating this? especially with this particular person? I saw the other day someone posting (not here) that COVID vaccines are actually a secret mind control plot to turn us all into slaves of Bill Gates. What's the burden of proof in that debate? Well, for me, the burden of proof is irrelevant, because I've got better things to do in life than even pay their arguments any attention. On the other hand, I often see debates on the Internet about the existence of God, and one side will claim that the other has all the burden of proof. (Most commonly it is the atheist side saying that, although I've heard theists say that too.) Nobody has to debate the existence of God, of course – whether you believe in God or not, you may well have better things to do than argue about it with some random person on the Internet. But, if you are going to enter into the debate, I think one should acknowledge that one is participating (however amateurishly) in the discipline of philosophy of religion, and then maybe one should pay some heed to professional philosophers' thoughts on the burden of proof–such as Lehrer's view that both sides in a philosophical debate bear an equal burden of proof.